Vermont State Laws
Law #1: Ban on personal electronic devices in schools
Statute / Bill: Act passed in 2025 session (“Phone-free schools” law) (Vermont Public)
Effective: Beginning in the 2026-27 school year (Vermont Public)
📝 What it does:
Bans students from using personal electronic devices in Vermont schools from the time they arrive until dismissal. (Vermont Public)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
Likely low direct cost. Schools will need to develop/enforce policies, communicate changes, train staff. Small administrative cost.
👥 Who it helps / affects:
Helps: Teachers, students who are more distracted by devices; school environments looking for increased focus.
Affects: Students who use phones/electronics during school for personal purposes; schools and staff who must enforce; possibly parents.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed:
Not yet fully detailed in my sources for sponsors or opposition. Coverage says legislature passed it; likely support from those emphasizing education quality. Some opposition possible from tech-use advocates or students/parents. (Vermont Public)
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons:
✅ Pros:
Reduces distractions during class.
Could improve learning outcomes.
❌ Cons:
Enforcement may be uneven.
Some students may feel restricted (e.g. if devices needed for emergencies or educational roles).
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
Starting in 2026-27, Vermont will ban students from using personal devices during school hours (arrival to dismissal) to help with classroom focus and learning, with some pushback expected around enforcement and fairness.
Law #2: Salary range posting in job ads; financial aid access; unpaid leave for assault survivors
Statute / Bill: Part of the July 1, 2025 laws in Vermont session; set of laws affecting municipal / civil / employment / education practices. (Vermont Public)
Effective: July 1, 2025 (Vermont Public)
📝 What it does:
Requires employers to post salary ranges in job advertisements. (Vermont Public)
Makes financial aid accessible to undocumented students. (Vermont Public)
Provides unpaid leave for victims of sexual assault. (Vermont Public)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
Minimal direct cost to state; administrative & oversight likely small.
Employers bear the cost of adjusting job ad practices.
👥 Who it helps / affects:
Helps: Job seekers (transparent pay), undocumented students (more access), sexual assault survivors.
Affects: Employers (must comply with salary posting), educational institutions / financial aid programs, employers/policy for leave.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed:
Not fully detailed in sources I saw — passed by legislature. Opposition likely minimal but possibly from employers who prefer flexibility in pay announcements.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons:
✅ Pros:
Pay transparency helps reduce wage inequity.
Provides opportunity/admission for undocumented students.
Supports survivors of assault with leave.
❌ Cons:
Employers concerned about privacy, negotiation flexibility, or revealing internal pay structures.
Implementation challenges (especially for small employers).
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
As of July 1, 2025, Vermont requires job ads to include salary ranges, opens financial aid to undocumented students, and gives sexual assault survivors unpaid leave — boosting fairness and support for vulnerable groups, with implementation costs and logistical work ahead.
Law #3: Increase in minimum age for delinquency proceedings (H.2 / Act #4)
Statute / Bill: Act #4 (H.2) — context: an act relating to increasing the minimum age for delinquency proceedings. (Vermont Legislature)
Effective: as of the date given in the Act (likely July 1, 2025, aligned with many FY laws) (Vermont Legislature)
📝 What it does:
Raises the youngest age at which a child can be subject to delinquency proceedings under Vermont law. This changes how early the State can hold children in juvenile justice system for delinquent acts. (Vermont Legislature)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
Some cost shift: fewer young children entering delinquency system might reduce costs of those proceedings/detention, though services (alternative support, prevention) might need funding.
👥 Who it helps / affects:
Helps: Young children who otherwise might be treated in delinquency proceedings; families; juvenile justice reform advocates.
Affects: Courts and legal system; child welfare / juvenile services; public safety agencies.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed:
Passed by Legislature; sponsored as part of juvenile justice / child welfare reform. Opposition potentially from those concerned about accountability or public safety in delinquency cases.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons:
✅ Pros:
Reduces risk of early criminalization of children.
Emphasizes prevention/intervention over punishment for young kids.
❌ Cons:
Requires investment in alternative, early support services.
Some may argue for a lower threshold in some cases of serious misconduct.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway:
Vermont’s Law (“Act #4, H.2”) raises the minimum age for delinquency proceedings, steering young children away from juvenile justice system toward support/rehab—progress for child welfare, with demands on services and policy clarity.
✅ Law #4: Climate Superfund / “Polluter Pays” Law
Statute / Bill: Act passed May 2025 — Vermont’s “Climate Superfund” (similar to NY’s model). (vermontpublic.org)
Effective: Passed May 30, 2025; implementation steps begin immediately, with fees assessed over next years.
📝 What it does
Requires large fossil fuel companies (oil, gas producers) to pay into a state climate superfund based on their historic greenhouse gas emissions.
Money raised will go toward climate adaptation projects: flood protection, infrastructure upgrades, disaster recovery, etc.
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Direct cost shift: instead of taxpayers footing the bill, oil/gas companies must pay hundreds of millions over time.
State budget covers administration and potential legal defense (industry lawsuits expected).
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Vermont communities hit by floods, storms, climate-driven disasters; state infrastructure.
Affects: Fossil fuel companies with major historical emissions; potentially energy consumers if costs are passed along.
🧑⚖️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Supported by environmental lawmakers and Gov. Phil Scott allowed it to pass without his signature.
Opposed strongly by fossil fuel industry groups, who are preparing lawsuits claiming it’s unconstitutional.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Holds polluters financially accountable.
Funds climate resilience without raising general taxes.
Sets national precedent; Vermont is one of the first.
❌ Cons:
Lawsuits may delay or overturn; legal uncertainty.
Companies may pass costs to consumers.
Could deter fossil fuel investment in Vermont.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Vermont’s 2025 Climate Superfund law forces big fossil fuel companies to pay into a fund for climate damage and resilience — groundbreaking polluter-pays policy, but headed straight for major court battles.